BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Hepatol. Mar 27, 2026; 18(3): 115221
Published online Mar 27, 2026. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v18.i3.115221
Figure 1
Figure 1 Liver biopsy of a patient with lesions compatible with combined T-cell mediated rejection and acute antibody-mediated rejection. A: Portal tract: Mild portal infiltrate, endothelialitis and C4d positivity; B: Centrilobular vein: Endothelialitis and microcapillaritis, and C4d positivity. C4d: Complement component 4d.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Overall cumulative time to biopsy-proven acute rejection after liver transplantation according to the immunological status. Kaplan-Meier analysis of cumulative time to biopsy-proven acute rejection after liver transplantation during the study period, comparing the high-risk and low-risk groups (log rank P = 0.75).
Figure 3
Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier analysis of patient survival. A: Patient survival after liver transplantation according to immunological status. Kaplan-Meier analysis of patient survival after liver transplantation during the study period, comparing the high-risk and low-risk groups (log rank P = 0.051); B: Patient survival after liver transplantation in both groups according to the occurrence of rejection. Kaplan-Meier analysis of patient survival after liver transplantation showing comparison between the high-risk with rejection, high-risk without rejection, low-risk with rejection and low-risk without rejection groups (log rank P = 0.25). MS: Median survival.
Figure 4
Figure 4 Donor-specific antibodies monitoring following liver transplantation in 12 patients (4 patients with acute antibody-mediated rejection, 4 with T-cell mediated rejection and 4 without rejection). ABMR: Antibody-mediated rejection; ATCR: Acute T-cell rejection; DSA: Donor specific antibodies; MFI: Mean fluorescence intens.